apfelmus at quantentunnel.de
Sat Jun 9 10:29:13 CEST 2012
Thomas Schilling wrote:
> On 8 June 2012 11:07, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Uploading it to Hackage is certainly an option, and there are arguments in
>> both directions. My thinking was:
>> - it's a bit small for a package by itself. There's a lot of
>> overhead for a package (github repo, Haskell Platform proposal,
>> issue tracker, blah blah)
Github provides much of the infrastructure by default, like an issue
> I am very much against putting things into base unless there is a
> *very* good argument to do this. If it is supposed to be *the*
> standard package, then it belongs into the platform, not base. If the
> platform process is too heavy-weight to discourage this path, then we
> need to do something about that rather than sneak things in through
> the base library. It already is a pain to work around issues in the
> base library (and many other core packages) since it's (a) takes a
> long time for an update to be released, and (b) cannot be upgraded
> independently from GHC (pulling in all the changes to other libraries
> as well).
> I'm glad that the name issues is resolved. If it is a small library a
> platform addition proposal shouldn't be too difficult either. We just
> have to beware of too much bike shedding.
> (BTW, have we had another platform proposal since the text package?)
+1 for a separate package that is included in the Haskell Platform.
If merging a package into the base library is easier than the process of
including it in the Haskell Platform, then the latter needs to be fixed.
More information about the Libraries